theologyprojectfandomcom-20200214-history
Les Miserables
''Les Miserables ''is a fascinating movie which examines human nature, rules, and rivalry. Although, having never read the book, I cannot say how accurate it is in comparison, regardless of its coinciding with its original plot, the movie is worth viewing. However, in my struggle with black, white, and grey, this moive poses a particular problem for me. Now before I go any further, I'm sure my readers' radars are already up warning, "False dilemma! False dilemma!" But my problem is not necessarily with the particular scenario, but more with the overarching principle, thus making the details of the story somewhat irrelevant and hopefully eliminating this common pitfall of mine. Anyway, the story goes that Jean Valjean is a poor man. One day, he is standing before a window behind which are piles of bread. He is starving, and he realizes that the only thing standing between him and sustinence is a thin pane of glass. He breaks the glass and steals the bread. However, he soon discovers that there really was more than that keeping him from the bread--the law was also involved. He is caught and sentenced to 20 years hard labor while imprisoned. During his 19th year, he is allowed out on parole. A kind bishop takes him in for the night, but Valjean spurns his kindness by sneaking out in the middle of the night with the man's valuables. Along the way, however, the bishop hears him and comes out to see what he is doing. Valjean knocks him unconscious and makes his escape. But once again, he is caught by the law and brought back to the bishop's house to ascertain if he is the man who stole and injured the bishop. This is where I encounter my first problem. The bishop, when asked if this is the man who stole from him, denies it all and says he actually gave all that silver to him. He then goes so far as to say that he was very displeased with him leaving because he had wanted to give the candlesticks to him as well. Valjean is shocked by the bishop's reaction and consequently changes his ways, becoming an outstanding gentleman who cares for all around him and becomes a successful business man. The bishop had mercy. He had been offended by Valjean, so it was within his authority to have mercy on him. But, was it in his authority to have mercy at the expense of the law? After all, he had transgressed not only the bishop, but also the laws of the land and the laws of God. Could he simply dismiss all that by having mercy. And, furthermore, he twisted the truth. Maybe had Valjean asked the bishop would have given him the silver, but the fact is that Valjean stole it in the middle of the night without asking permission and then knocked the bishop out. Thus, by saying he had given all of that to him, he was twisting the truth. No, to be more precise, he was lying. And, lying is wrong, pure and simple. But, had he told the truth, Valjean would have been sent back to prision, possibly for life, despite already enduring what seems to me to be a rather unjust penalty of almost 20 years working as a slave for stealing one loaf of bread. And, the bishop himself was not holding Valjean accountable for stealing. He had chosen to have mercy. Can't man choose to have mercy? Jesus, when encountering the woman caught in adultery, told the Pharisees that if they were not guilty of sin, they could cast the first stone (stoning was the just punishment for adultery). Then, once they all recognized that they were not sinless and had done things deserving of punishments although they had not received them, Jesus, the only person who was sinless, chose to have mercy on her and did not stone her, even though the law demanded that she be stoned. But He was God. Does that make a difference in that case? Does that mean that man can't have mercy, because God is the ultimate authority? Hence, my first problem. Next, later on in the story, while living his reformed life of goodness and moral uprightness, an inspector comes to town who just happened to be one of the officials overseeing the labor force Valjean used to be a prat of. This man thinks he recognizes Valjean and sets out to discover his true identity and bring "justice" upon him. It seems to become a contest as he struggles to destroy Valjean because he did not return for his last year or so of time in prison after being on parole. He chases him for a long time in anger and bitterness. Several times, Valjean has a chance to kill the inspector, but he spares his life. Finally, the inspector captures Valjean. But at this point, the inspector has seen that Valjean is a completely different person who has been kind to all around him and has had mercy on his own life several times. However, the inspector feels that according to the law, Valjean must receive his just punishment. So, he is caught in a very difficult dilemma. He is a rule follower, and the rules say Valjean must die or at least be sentenced to hard labor for a very long time. Yet he has seen the goodness of Valjean and no longer thinks he is deserving of such a sentence. However, he cannot reconcile this breaking of the rules and neither can he simply let Valjean go. So, he sends everyone else away, takes Valjean to a river, tells him he is free, and then shoots himself because according to the law he is wrong, but according to everything else he knows, following the law just doesn't seem right. I don't feel like I'm doing a very good job explaining this. You'd pretty much just have to watch the movie. But, my point is, was the inspector wrong to have mercy on him this way? He is not the ultimate authority. Valjean had indeed sinned by stealing and later running away from prison. But what did that mean? It is a very difficult question which I'm not sure if I can answer. However, I do know that, in my opinion, the inspector is an evil man. But, he was trying to follow the rules. I don't want to be an evil person, but I want to follow the rules. Can't I ever break the rules so I can have mercy on someone or save someone's life?